Speed test problems

If anyone is having problems with the TBB Speed test please read this thread
low / difficult speed tests using port 8095

I've had problems with the TBB speedtester for years. It was top notch in my Eclipse/Demon 512K/2Mb days but ever since Demon went to MaxDSL and I was hunting for 8Mb it went off the rails. Since then I've been through Be (~15Mb) and now Virgin (50Mb), and the TBB speedtester has been consistently inconsistent throughout. Just tried it again and it returned a result of 30.6/2.3, but I am now retrieving a test post from Giganews at pretty much bang on 50Mb.

I always follow the various threads about problems with the tester and try different things out, usually to no avail. I can only imagine it's congestion along the route somewhere, but these days there's too many more reliable sources available that make it pretty useless IMHO.

Maybe if we stopped reporting average, and gave burst speed people would feel all warm and cuddly about the result

To be honest TBB speed test is load of rubbish. Better use speedtest.net instead.

As I said, if we gave burst speed it would make people feel happier about their connections, would it be accurate?

One speedtest has shown an average of 31Mbps during testing on a 30Meg product.

Are there any reliable testers available I wonder?

Download a large file and time it!

Still only as reliable as the weakest link in the chain between the end-user and the server.

Also for those on faster connections a file download will be limited by write to disk time. Hence why tbbmeter does not save file downloads to disk when using them for tests.

We endeavour to make our tester as reliable as possible, but obviously cannot control

1. Congestion in an ISP's network or links to the outside world
2. Traffic mangement techniques employed that impact on some protocols

I'm now on 50Mbps cable. The TBB tester consistently gives me results of ~ 20Mbps yet speedtest.net just as consistently gives results of ~ 50Mbps and any time I care to do a download from a known good source it will run at ~ 6MBps.

I think if you ask many people on cable will report something similar. I have no idea why because on ADSL TBB agreed well with other speedtest sites.

Don't have my numbers to hand, but we do see some people on VM 50Meg testing to close to 50Meg, but average is a little lower than some other sites, probably because of our use of average rather than peak.

Maybe maybe not but I know that I can download at over 6MBps and rarely see over 20Mbps reported by the TBB tester so something is wrong for sure. The multithreading Flash test is pretty much the same.

The Speedtest.net test shows a representation of how stable the download speed is while it is running. If I do one one on my phone it can be seen to fluctuate wildly but the VM one is just about always rock solid so the peak and average should be very similar. If it was reporting the minimum then I could believe it but as it stands I regard it as worthless on my connection.

===

Example of speedtest.net actually in progress - downstream complete upstream in progress - it doesn't show stability bar for upstream. - http://www.kwikbreaks.webspace.virginmedia.com/speed...

Here is a Networkx graph during speedtests....

http://www.kwikbreaks.webspace.virginmedia.com/netwo...

Edited by kwikbreaks (Sat 06-Aug-11 09:36:59)

On the TBB Speedtester, I generally get 6.5 Mbps on both my Ethernet-connected Vista Tower and WiFi Windows 7 Laptop.

My WiFi XP Netbook gets around 5.5 Mps, all three through the same "up to 8 Mbps" Orange Livebox.

I acknowledge that these are Averages, as Andrew has mentioned earlier.

Trying on Speedtest, the first two average about 0.3 Mbps faster, within the range of variability I would expect.

The WiFi XP Netbook averages in the the 3 to 5 Mbps, more variability in the averages.

The first two PCs show what I presume to be "burst speeds" of up to about 8.5 Mbps whilst the test is taking place, with peaks spread out along the test graph.


However, the WiFi XP Netbook during the first part of Speedtest has shown speeds frequently in the 10 to 12 Mbps, rising to frequently 15 Mbps; and on two occasions, hitting 25 Mbps.

BUT in the later parts of each Speedtest, it drops to about 2 to 3 Mbps, giving averages around 3 to 5 Mbps for each Speedtest.

===========================

Does this imply that the Orange Livebox is capable of running continuously at those much higher speeds?

Where is the speed, whether "burst" or Average, measured on both TBB and Speedtest?

How do they relate to both the "up to 8 Mbps" Orange Service; and to the 54 Mbps of the WiFi link?

Thanks

The speedtest 'problems'; in this discussion were for Virgin Media customers who were seeing strange test results recently.

If on an up to 8Mbps ADSL service, then any speedtest reporting over 7.1Mbps is giving a wrong result.

Bursts are often down to software firewalls buffering data

You have replied to the off topic (nonVM) post but ignored mine. Did you look at my graphs? If I run the TBB speedtest Networx shows it runs at ~ 20Mbps but if I run the speedtest.net test it goes at ~ 50Mbps.

I know from forum discussions that many VM customers see exactly the same thing. There must be a routing problem between VM and TBB. From the looks of it one leg must be ADSL

1. recent traffic management issue on VM network
2. Well known that some routes out of VM or into can be congested, and that is down to VM to resolve

I know I can get 100Meg from VM connections on our tester.

No ADSL involved at our end, GigE is used on our network, and Seb and John have full visibility of all the network hardware, and when Seb says it is not in our network believe him.

I'm not sure where the problem lies especially as pathping shows nothing obvious..

Tracing route to speedtest2.thinkbroadband.com [80.249.109.154]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
0 Acer-Desktop.cable.virginmedia.net [192.168.0.141]
1 192.168.0.1
2 cpc1-nrte22-2-0-gw.8-4.cable.virginmedia.com [82.5.20.1]
3 nrth-core-1b-ae1-2555.network.virginmedia.net [213.106.255.209]
4 nrth-bb-1b-so-511-0.network.virginmedia.net [212.43.162.241]
5 brnt-bb-1a-as2-0.network.virginmedia.net [212.43.162.217]
6 brnt-bb-1b-ae0-0.network.virginmedia.net [213.105.174.226]
7 brnt-tmr-1-ae5-0.network.virginmedia.net [213.105.159.50]
8 telc-ic-1-as0-0.network.virginmedia.net [62.253.185.74]
9 linx-gw1.thdo.ncuk.net [195.66.226.240]
10 speedtest2.thinkbroadband.com [80.249.109.154]

Computing statistics for 250 seconds...
Source to Here This Node/Link
Hop RTT Lost/Sent = Pct Lost/Sent = Pct Address
0 Acer-Desktop.cable.virginmedia.net [192.168.0.141] 0/ 100 = 0% |
1 0ms 0/ 100 = 0% 0/ 100 = 0% 192.168.0.1 0/ 100 = 0% |
2 17ms 0/ 100 = 0% 0/ 100 = 0% cpc1-nrte22-2-0-gw.8-4.cable.virginmedia.com [82.5.20.1] 0/ 100 = 0% |
3 14ms 0/ 100 = 0% 0/ 100 = 0% nrth-core-1b-ae1-2555.network.virginmedia.net [213.106.255.209] 0/ 100 = 0% |
4 19ms 0/ 100 = 0% 0/ 100 = 0% nrth-bb-1b-so-511-0.network.virginmedia.net [212.43.162.241] 0/ 100 = 0% |
5 19ms 0/ 100 = 0% 0/ 100 = 0% brnt-bb-1a-as2-0.network.virginmedia.net [212.43.162.217] 0/ 100 = 0% |
6 19ms 0/ 100 = 0% 0/ 100 = 0% brnt-bb-1b-ae0-0.network.virginmedia.net [213.105.174.226] 0/ 100 = 0% |
7 19ms 0/ 100 = 0% 0/ 100 = 0% brnt-tmr-1-ae5-0.network.virginmedia.net [213.105.159.50] 0/ 100 = 0% |
8 16ms 0/ 100 = 0% 0/ 100 = 0% telc-ic-1-as0-0.network.virginmedia.net [62.253.185.74] 0/ 100 = 0% |
9 18ms 0/ 100 = 0% 0/ 100 = 0% linx-gw1.thdo.ncuk.net [195.66.226.240] 0/ 100 = 0% |
10 16ms 0/ 100 = 0% 0/ 100 = 0% speedtest2.thinkbroadband.com [80.249.109.154]

Trace complete.

As most congestion on VM occurs at the local level that is what I'd normally want to check if I suspected a problem and as the TBB test is always sub par it makes it useless for me and many others on VM.

I doubt that there is a huge amount of congestion at 6:30 omn a Monday morning yet still I only see



I suspect the problem lies more in the test code itself. I'm on Win 7 Opera on a fairly low end PC.

Edited by kwikbreaks (Mon 08-Aug-11 06:47:25)

If it was the code then would show up the same issue on all providers with faster speeds....

A slow PC may have an effect i.e. java not running as well, hence we do a flash version too.

CPU load while running the tests is low so any problem would be something other than processor power. As I mentioned earlier I see similar results from your Flash based tester.

I ran tests earlier today using this XP netbook - a Vodafone sim in a 3 Mii and with that I got...

TBB 1.2Mbps / 1.8Mbps up
Speedtest.net 2.91Mbps / 1.02Mbps up

3G and WiFi both vary but I'm a foot from the Mii and 150m from the Vodafone cell so I wouldn't expect such big variations. On 3G I can't afford to waste my allowance running a load of speedtests. I'm assuming I'd see that, as before, both tests report correctly on what was achieved and for some reason I get poor download speeds using the TBB tester again.

I really have no idea why I can no longer get the TBB tester to report the sort of speeds I know I can get from my VM connection doing real downloads but it is a plain fact that I can't and I'm not the only one. At least I've explained why I don't regard it as being a useful tool.

I agree if low results off peak outside of shaping hours then something else is probably the cause rather than congestion.

6.11am on my 30mbit connection.



my dumeter graph showed a very slow start but the end of the test was at 3.9meg/sec full speed.

the issue could be down to the congestion control used on the tbb servers.

I'll say again if the issue was congestion control as you call it on our servers that would affect all service providers....

there has been complaints from non VM users on high speed lines as well and some infinity users if I remember right. I would exclude adsl providers as typical speeds on adsl are low anyway.

congestion control is a funny one, it can affect different connections in different ways so wouldnt necessarily affect everyone.

usually hard proof of congestion is when off peak is fast and peak is slow, when off peak is also slow as well then that to me suggests something else needs looking at. I dont think VM's peering is that bad that it also slows down at 6am, tbb is the only place I see that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TCP_congestion_avoidanc...

Edited by Chrysalis (Tue 09-Aug-11 18:05:12)

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

If it was the code then would show up the same issue on all providers with faster speeds....
A slow PC may have an effect i.e. java not running as well, hence we do a flash version too.

Java is a potential source of problems .. most tester s being flash.

seb

Infinity - was not us again, something odd was going on, and very few people actually posting the traffic pattern so that you can see if its a spiky traffic or TCP ramps being hte issue.

Perhaps email seb and john and explain the tcp congestion theory on their server and see what they say

In reply to a post by seb:

Java is a potential source of problems .. most tester s being flash.
seb

Your Flash tester gives me the same sort of results.

Comparison this morning - http://tinypic.com/m/ete5hz/1

As I said something is wrong and it onlg goes wrong with TBB testing - evrything else runs at very close to headline speeds.

The speedtest.net it is slow for a while at the start, almost as if something is detecting the test and then letting it run fast.

What speeds do you get if you download

1. A single file from http://www.thinkbroadband.com/download.html
2. Two files at the same time from http://www.thinkbroadband.com/download.html

OK I've done that plus a couple of other tests.

http://i54.tinypic.com/2yzncd3.jpg

To test I used jdownloader. I was remote desktop to my home machine. The connection has some other stuff that may or may not have been running - I have applications that upload some data to the web and there is an IP camera plus a webcam running on this machine which can be accessed from a website. Neither gets a heavy load though - maybe a dozen or so visits each a day with an enforced limit of just a few minutes.

The first is 1 x TBB file 1 connection. This is variable but I suppose the average is 1.5 MBps

The second is 2 x TBB files 2 downloads 2 connections (that will actually work out at 4 total connectuions) - say 2.7 MBps

The third is 3 files from Filesonic 12 connections (36 total connections and how I'd normally download) I throttled it back and then cancelled the download at the end. Not sure what the small spikes are at the start maybe there was a hiccup starting or possibly finger trouble - I don't remember. I'd put this at average 5.5 MBps during thegenuinely active period.

The fourth is 2 TBB files 12 connections - say 3.8MBps until the first file completed and then maybe 2.3MBps

Clearly the number of connections have an impact but TBB is performing worse than FileSonic.

Edited by kwikbreaks (Wed 10-Aug-11 15:20:39)

Still could be ISP and peering based, all it proves is that multiple threads are needed to saturate your line and speedtest.net does two threads in its test, we usually do 1.

The ISPA testing used two, and tbbmeter lets you have up to 5.

Reason I say ISP is this: During ISPA testing we did tests that used single thread and dual thread, and on some ISP's no difference, on VM there was a difference that you could see, then with no config changes at our end sometimes you would see a big change in the average.

How different are the routes between tbb and the fillesonic files?

You have probably hit the nail on the head with the number of connections. On reflection given the way cable upstream operates with requested upstream slots a single connection is probably always going to be slower than multiple connections. If Ignition sees this thread he's probably best qualified to comment. Plus even multithreaded the TBB downloads didn't exactly fly.

I think I'll mark that down as probably being the answer rather than congestion at 6:30 a.m. Of course it still doesn't alter the fact that this makes the TBB speedtest useless as a diagnostic aid to me.

> How different are the routes between tbb and the fillesonic files?

Completely different beyond the initial hops....

C:\Windows\System32>tracert speedtest.thinkbroadband.co.uk

Tracing route to speedtest2.thinkbroadband.co.uk [80.249.109.154]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.0.1
2 10 ms 7 ms 7 ms cpc1-nrte22-2-0-gw.8-4.cable.virginmedia.com [82.5.20.1]
3 9 ms 7 ms 7 ms nrth-core-1b-ae1-2555.network.virginmedia.net [213.106.255.209]
4 8 ms 7 ms 7 ms nrth-bb-1b-so-511-0.network.virginmedia.net [212.43.162.241]
5 11 ms 11 ms 17 ms brnt-bb-1a-as2-0.network.virginmedia.net [212.43.162.217]
6 13 ms 10 ms 10 ms brnt-bb-1b-ae0-0.network.virginmedia.net [213.105.174.226]
7 9 ms 10 ms 11 ms brnt-tmr-1-ae5-0.network.virginmedia.net [213.105.159.50]
8 13 ms 11 ms 12 ms telc-ic-1-as0-0.network.virginmedia.net [62.253.185.74]
9 14 ms 10 ms 11 ms linx-gw1.thdo.ncuk.net [195.66.226.240]
10 11 ms 12 ms 11 ms speedtest2.thinkbroadband.com [80.249.109.154]

Trace complete.

C:\Windows\System32>tracert filesonic.com

Tracing route to filesonic.com [78.140.163.15]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.0.1
2 17 ms 7 ms 7 ms cpc1-nrte22-2-0-gw.8-4.cable.virginmedia.com [82.5.20.1]
3 8 ms 9 ms 7 ms nrth-core-1a-ae1-2555.network.virginmedia.net [213.106.255.81]
4 10 ms 7 ms 7 ms nrth-bb-1a-so-210-0.network.virginmedia.net [212.43.162.237]
5 12 ms 10 ms 11 ms manc-bb-1b-as4-0.network.virginmedia.net [213.105.64.22]
6 13 ms 14 ms 11 ms know-core-1b-pc200.network.virginmedia.net [195.182.178.150]
7 12 ms 11 ms 11 ms wb7301a.network.virginmedia.net [62.30.0.204]
8 15 ms 15 ms 16 ms brhm-bb-1a-ge-720-0.network.virginmedia.net [62.30.249.46]
9 21 ms 18 ms 19 ms 0.ae1.mpr1.lhr1.uk.above.net [213.161.65.149]
10 14 ms 14 ms 15 ms ldn-b5-link.telia.net [213.248.104.37]
11 115 ms 36 ms 16 ms ldn-bb1-link.telia.net [80.91.252.205]
12 24 ms 23 ms 23 ms adm-bb1-link.telia.net [80.91.253.17]
13 22 ms 24 ms 22 ms adm-b4-link.telia.net [80.91.253.176]
14 31 ms 31 ms 31 ms ic-130057-adm-b4.c.telia.net [213.248.93.130]
15 29 ms 32 ms 31 ms v-2-fg09-d861-15.webazilla.com [78.140.163.15]

Trace complete.

C:\Windows\System32>

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

The speedtest.net it is slow for a while at the start, almost as if something is detecting the test and then letting it run fast.

What speeds do you get if you download

1. A single file from http://www.thinkbroadband.com/download.html
2. Two files at the same time from http://www.thinkbroadband.com/download.html

for me #1 just went straight to 3.9meg/sec full speed.

so I didnt need to do test #2.

these files are on a different server to what the speedtest runs on.

I regurly download files from some gigabit servers I run, and I can max out my line single threaded.

Why didnt u do single threaded filesonic tests?

Yes they are but as I understand it there should be no difference and if anything the download server has more control as some people sit there downloading the GB file constantly.

RWIN tuning can also affect single versus multiple too.

The speedtest game is more complex with software firewalls messing with traffic too sometimes. The taking highest sample is the way to produce happier users of a test, is it correct though.

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

Why didnt u do single threaded filesonic tests?

I didn't think of it at the time and it's becoming obvious that the TBB speedtest won't be changed whatever tests I do. Far simpler if I just don't use it.

Changed how?

We test it on 100Meg and VM connections relatively regularly and produces good results. Seb showed a plot that seemed to show a reasonable distribution of speeds the other day, i.e. lots of VM users on slower packages, but a good number getting high results still

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

The taking highest sample is the way to produce happier users of a test, is it correct though.

I imagine it wouldn't be beyond the wit of the TBB coders to do both. My own tests show that the difference between TBB and other testers is a lot more than just whether or not the maximum or average are reported though as the Networkx graph clearly shows TBB peaks come nowhere near those from the other speddtests.

Speedtest comparisons. My conclusions from these are that the BroadbandMax test is pretty useless on high speed connections as it's far too short. It clearly reports absolute peak speed too as it is reporting higher than my Networkx chart is showing. For some reason or other my upstream is lower than it should be. It could be someone on the IP camera which wouldn't show on Networx but I think it's more likely congestion as I have seen this before in the daytime. It may even be the logmein access which isn't using a lot of bandwidth according to the chart but may have some other impact. TBB is managing less speed as usual but is actually showing a bit better than the other day at 6:30.

Results from http://www.speed.io
(Copied on 2011-08-11 11:10:23)
Download: 45997 Kbit/s
Upload : 4377 kbit/s
Connects : 2109 conn/min
Ping: 16 ms
http://speed.io/pics/4536/7489/speed.io.png

Speedtest.net
49.71 / 3.77
http://www.speedtest.net/result/1427705920.png


BrodbandMax
Download Speed: 46350 kbps (5793.8 KB/sec ) Upload Speed: 3784 kbps (473 KB/sec )
http://www.speedtest.bbmax.co.uk/results.php?t=13130...

TBB
29.8 / 4.4


Networx bandwith chart while tests were run...
http://www.kwikbreaks.webspace.virginmedia.com/speed...

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Changed how?

We test it on 100Meg and VM connections relatively regularly and produces good results. Seb showed a plot that seemed to show a reasonable distribution of speeds the other day, i.e. lots of VM users on slower packages, but a good number getting high results still

I've no idea what would need changing because I don't know what's wrong as, after all, I don't operate a speedtest website. My own comparisons prove to my satisfaction that something obviously isn't right. Fortunately there are alternate testers which I can use if I suspect I have a problem with my connection.

What should happen is a good ISP will run a speedtester just inside their own network so you can test your connection, rather than testing connection, internet network, peering, destination third party server etc

Oh and not use traffic management to ensure good results from some places

There is no capacity based throttling on 50Mbps downstream and VM claim shaping only runs from 5pm to midnight on weekdays and midday to mignight weekends. It is supposed to impact only P2P and NNTP although there are claims that it can also hit "unidentified" traffic including some gaming traffic. That said I seriously doubt that traffic management is the reason the TBB test is consistently slower than others on my connection.

VM suggest using the game test files they host for speedtesting. It's far more convenient to run a quick speedtest though. So long as it can keep up.

Does TBB run a speedtest website or is it an add-on to the rest of what they do?

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Yes they are but as I understand it there should be no difference and if anything the download server has more control as some people sit there downloading the GB file constantly.

RWIN tuning can also affect single versus multiple too.

The speedtest game is more complex with software firewalls messing with traffic too sometimes. The taking highest sample is the way to produce happier users of a test, is it correct though.

all good points but generally if things like RWIN are tuned badly then it would affect more then just one speedtest site.

Windows 7 tuning is fine by default, except in some cases of incompatible routers, nics been used alongside the autotuning.

There is VM peering issues, but I think before going further on that tbb need to get it fixed in that at 6am it provides full speed.

they have one but its password protected so only VM staff can use it.

The best way is using dumeter or networx and watch it as you do speedtests, downloads etc. Or even tbb's software as they have a live graph monitor as well.

If even at busy times if I find a fast line I can exceed 50Meg from our tester without much issue at all, so not sure what needs fixing on our server

No issue just now getting 80Mbps and higher from download.thinkbroadband.com (the server used did not have flash or java on it). That was a single file thead too

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

.. not sure what needs fixing on our server..

There's no need to fix anything. It's clearly running to your satisfaction and those, like me, who don't get useful results from it can use alternatives.

just watched a clip of sky news, full 3.9meg/sec for about 30 seconds until it buffered the video.

followed up with a test on tbb and again slow start followed by full speed, classic sympton of dodgy congestion/slow start algorithm, something which is controlled by sending server.

I already told you I have no issue on the file download tests, they fine, whats broken is the speedtester. Assuming the file downloads are on the same network this also puts the peering aside as a culprit as well. It is something unique to the speedtester that is the problem, whether its the code, the settings or the server.

i have also noticed a major difference between ur Java and Flash based testers.

For example and this has happened to me many times.

I tested using Java and it gives me 17.1mb down and 4.4mb up
I tested using flash and got 43.53 down and 4.4mb up

I then retested using Java and got 19.2mb down and 4.5mb up
retested using flash and got 42.18mb down and 4.4up.

You talk about averaging, but don't discuss the environment upstream and downstream of the ISP. That also needs examination: pinging software does so and you'll never get 100MB feeds when the source is only delivering 20MB, for example, or the local LAN only delivers 10MB thanks to the building structure.
True, averaging is important, but it also depends on the reasonable service delivery expectation of the ISP and client. Someone looking for streaming out of a 500KB contract is obviously away with the fairies, someone getting 700KB from a notional 30MB is being dumped on, provided of course they've not abused their download in the past. Is there any reason not to deliver a matrix of tests, burst, continuous and average, against a variety of data types?
Then again, time is also important: to draw valid conclusions a test should be run at intervals over at least a day, to identify maximum likely delivery (0330am!) and stochastic loading: an ISP will never have broadwidth proportionate to its customer base, as the more customers it has the more stable the demand and the more it can trade off on the queueing average. That can come gloriously unstuck when, for example, a new online game is launched all their customers want to download at once.

Just ignore the thinkbroadband speedtest. It is slow and inaccurate. There is a reason that nobody uses it, save for some tbb members.

Edited by deleted (Sat 20-Aug-11 08:24:19)

In reply to a post by Roph:

Just ignore the thinkbroadband speedtest. It is slow and inaccurate. There is a reason that nobody uses it, save for some tbb members.

Its inaccurate on Virgin Media because of issues with Virgin Media's routing. This is discussed in the Talk To the Staff forum. To me on BE the TBB speedtest gives the same results as speedtest.net, or bbmax and other sites.

If the sites you want to use also share the same routing, then they will be slow on Virgin Media. If the sites you want to use don't use this routing then they will be fine.

YMMV.

It can't just be the routing. No UK routes are busy at 6:30 AM.

In reply to a post by kwikbreaks:

It can't just be the routing. No UK routes are busy at 6:30 AM.

No, its probably caused by VM testing latest throttling technologies. Worth reading the thread a few weeks back in Talk To The Staff.

Strangely enough their "latest throttling technologies" only have any effect on the TBB tester. I did look at the Talk to the Staff thread but there was no definitive solution to why the TBB tester and only the TBB tester consistently delivers lower speeds than others which it most certainly does for me regardless of port and time.

It seems to be OK for at least some 30Mbps users and obviously any ADSL connection is going to be slower still but for me on 50Mbps it doesn't give results which are of any use to me.

Edited by kwikbreaks (Sun 21-Aug-11 16:49:00)

In reply to a post by kwikbreaks:

It seems to be OK for at least some 30Mbps users and obviously any ADSL connection is going to be slower still but for me on 50Mbps it doesn't give results which are of any use to me.

This was the thread I meant in case you saw a different one:
http://forums.thinkbroadband.com/newsite/f/4025053-v...

I've made it work on a 200 megabit office connection, and it was reliable, and many people post it works on FTTC.

VM is radically different in each region - the thread in TTTS was talking about possible problems with VM's Linx routers too. Capacity perhaps.

TBB's speedtest is the only one that shows the real throughput (watch the graph on the flash tester); whereas a lot of the others, including Ookla based ones (speedtest.net and/or bbmax) use the peak speed. If you have a 100 Mbps connection and peak at 90 but mostly run at 20 due to congestion, the ookla testers tell you you have 90. TBB will say 20.

Anyway the real test is to download real files from well connected sites, Oracle Database from Oracle.com is a few gig - or big downloads from Microsoft's download centre - and time the downloads. tbbMeter is also useful to show the throughput too, completely separate to the web testers.

Edited by jchamier (Sun 21-Aug-11 17:40:14)

There's a graph on the speedtest.net one too plus I ran a networx graph alongside the tests and posted links to the images above. They all clearly showed that the TBB test delivered less speed.

This is my last post on this topic as I know for certain that the TBB test is inaccurate for me although I don't know why. Just how well it works for other people is completely irrelevant to me.

Edited by kwikbreaks (Mon 22-Aug-11 06:28:36)

Post deleted by wanapoo

Edited by deleted (Mon 22-Aug-11 08:11:14)

its worth pointing out your office connection probably has a lower stable rtt than the typical cable broadband connection. The "it works for me" doesnt mean its not broken.

I am still waiting for tbb to say what congestion avoidance algorithm they using.

VM also do not shape at 6.30am, I have done numerous tests and I have not had anything indicating throttling at that time.

Answer from me, if it is me who you are waiting for is I don't know.

They're throttling again tonight - dunno why but I'm down to a quarter of normal speeds


Been like that for the last hour plus. I only d/l during the night, if I d/l at all, and have just been doing browsing and email today.

MyVirginMedia pages are down, call centre is busy, nothing short of pathetic yet again. Crazy thing is, my usual indicator is working - the VOIP service is on, strange, that's normally first thing to go.

I didn't notice anything out of the ordinary last night - and this morning is fine. Both times theTBB rest went through without the hesitations on the upload part .

just done one and bizarrelly faster than 6am.



I got a speedtester on a freebsd server which had the newreno algorithm (old poor one), freebsd 8.2-STABLE added modern ones and when I switched to cubic a 100mbit VM user went from 25-40mbit to 85mbit.